, privilege, the national interests served by the law were, strong enough to override the personal interests, and that the law was a reasonable way to achieve these interests; - -

At the same time', however, the opinion seemed almost to invite litigation over the, law as eventnally . itripleniented,: If, today's ruling is affiritedx the regulations; when adopted' are almost certain to be the subject of court' action.

Another remaining issue, as the court noted today, is whether Mr. Nixon was the owner of the documents before

law went into effect, and thus whether he must' be cont-pensated for the Government's

taking possession and owner-ship of the material.

The court, in disposing of each of Mr. Nixon's challenges, made the following additional points:

410n separation of powers, it said that Mr. Nixon's view of the principle, "requiring three air-tight departments of gov-ernment," was "archaic."

410n the claim of privilege, it said that it was not sure that a former President could claim privilege, and that even if a former President could, his claim was entitled to substan-tially less force than a claim by an incumbent; that the law, which provides for screening of

--- Jr, of the United States District Courts It discussed each of the contentions in a few instances, such as the contention involv-ing privacy, and said that the challenges were "troublesome."

It9gfilationa Are Cited'. However, it said that regular

tions pending in Congress that are, tcrbe adopted to, implenient the.. Tait_might SolveL some of the problems expected by Mr. Nixon.

It said that it was limiting its ruling to the constitutionality of the law on its face' -specifically, to the directive that the -Administrator of Gen-eral Services take custody of the Nixon materials and prom-

ulgate regulations that would provide for processing the papers so the purely 'personal and private would be returned to', the Nixons, and provide for terms and conditions of access to the materials.

."We do not believe these [constitutional] prob1ems,[raised-by,flV1r. Nixon] to be such 'as to justify 'stopping the act- in its tracks, given its scheme of im-plementation by regulations . the -writing of which Congreis itself. has retained-a role," the court said.

In effect, the judges found that while Mr. Nixon had some legitimate interests such as privacy and perhaps an interest stemming from the Presidential

Law Giving Nixon's Tapes ToU.S.IsUpheldbyCourt

NYTimes By LESLEY OnsNER JAN 8 1976 Special to Thi New Ycrk Mlles

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7—A ture from three-judge Federal court unan- added. imously upheld today the 1974 laVstliat gave the 'Government control over Richard M. Nixon's Presidential Papers and tape recordings, saying that Con-gress had had "an adequate basis for concluding that Mr. Nixon might not be a' wholly reliable custodian of the mate-rials."

The court barred almost all disclosure or processing of the Presidential documents pending appeal. This afternoon, Mr. Nix-on's lawyer, Herbert J. Miller Jr., said that the former 'Pres-ident would appeal to the Su-preme COurt.

The three-judge court, in a 105-page opinion; said "there is always some risk" that any President with unbridled con-trol of his papers might destroy or alter some items.

"That risk might rationally be thought by Congress to be considerably magnified by ref-erence to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Nixon's depar-

office," the court

The various Watergate inves-tigations and the "substantial evidence they brought forth which might reasonably have been thought by Congress to suggest that there, was miscon-duct on the part of Mr. Nixon and his close associates, are too familiar and too well-re-corded elsewhere to merit ela-boration by us," the court said.

"The temptation to distort or destroy the historical record might' be thought by Congress to be less resistible in the event that the materials provided some foundation for allegations that misconduct took place," the court continued.

The court, which went on to say it was not "indicating any view about the accuracy" of such allegatidns, said that the law did pose a "not insignif-icant" invasion of Mr. ,Nixon's privacy. It said, however, that the law served national inter-

Continued on Page 15, Column 1

4. Continued From Page 1, Col. 2 ests of "overriding impor-tance," and that in view of

" the "special circumstances" of ' these, the invasion was "not

unreasonable." k. Mr. Nixon challenged the sta-

tute as unconstitutional, on a w variety of grounds. 4 He contends that it violates

the principle of separation of powers, in that it is an incur-sion by Congress on the execu-tive branch; that it conflicts

*with the constitutional "Pres-idential privilege"; that it pro-

, vides an illegal search and sei-zure; that it violates his right

s. to privacy; that it denies him equal protection' of the laws in that it treats him differently

:from other Presidents, and that it infringes his First Amendment

` rights of expression. - Today's ruling grew out of :long and tangled litigation. • Originally, Mr. Nixon sought , to have the courts enforce the agreement that was made with the White House by the Gen-eral Services Administration immediately after his resigna-tion. That agreement gave him

", some control over the docu-ments.

• Various other people, such as -reporters and historians, also 'filed suit,.seeking access to the Nixon materials.

• When the law went into ef-4ect, superseding the agree-ment, Mr. Nixon filed a suit .challenging it. He asked for a

:three-judge panel, under the ,procedure used when a law is *challenged as unconstitutional. • However, the trial judge 'who had heard the first round 'of cases, Judge Charles R. )lichey of United States District Court here, issued an opinion saying that the materials be-

longed to the Government. The. Court of Appeals immediately stayed the ruling, at the re-quest of MIN NiXon's lawyers; whp contended that a three-judge panel should have been convened, and, that Jniigd Richey's , decistpn interfered with the test of the new law.

Subsequently, the appeals court ordered 3 three-judge panel to ear the; challenge to the law Nixon's. second lawsuit. ". 1-.•

This is the suit In which the court ruled today.

The court's opinion was writ-ten by Judge Carl McGowan of the United States Court of Appeals here and joined by Edward A. Tamm ,of the same court and Aubrey E. Robinson

the documents by trained archi-vists, would lead to only a min-imal intrusion on confidential-ity of executive communica tions, the value being protected by the Privilege.

The court reached this con-clusion by'• applying` ;a kind of balancing test.' It weighed' the right to 'confidentiality against the amount of material that might be protected bythis Tight —a small amount of the,total, the court said—and, in: addition, the fatt that professional archiv-ists • Would be doing the screen ing; that Congress might -"ra-tionally" have concluded that Mr. Nixon would „pot be a 'whollyreliable" custodian, and

that there were public interests in preserving the historietil r%c-ord.

IOn privacy,. the court slid that Mr. Nixon had a reasonable expectation of privacy, sinee previous Presidents had on leaV-ing Office not been subjected 0) forced government screeningliof their papers.

It also said, however, that the constitutional test was whether the invasion of privacy was reasonable, and that in this ease,. giVen such factors as the use of archivists and the mix-ture of personal and work pa-pers in the Presidential files,,it was reasonable.

REMEMBER THE NEEDIEST!